Slashdot Mirror
1 World Trade Center Becomes the Tallest Building In NYC
darthcamaro writes "On 9/11, terrorists took the lives of thousands of Americans — and removed a pair of icons from the New York City skyline. For the last 10+ years, The Empire State Building was the tallest building in NYC, but that changed today. 'Poking into the sky, the first column of the 100th floor of 1 World Trade Center will bring the tower to a height of 1,271 feet, making it 21 feet higher than the Empire State Building.'"
I actually find it interesting and a feat of engineering to have such a tall building. What is up with all the trolls? Get a life you guys. This was a tragic event that should never be forgotten. If there was no mention on Slashdot I would think that someone was asleep at the wheel.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Stupid bickering between the city and developers kept the World Trade Center an embarrassing hole in the ground for over 9 years. This building should have been finished years ago.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Almost 11 years to build a building. Nuts. The Empire State was built in just 2.5 years using primitive 1920s technology, and the first WTC in the same amount of time.
I think the long dragout time is symbolic of how America has lost its ability to get things done in a quick fashion. (And why people turn to India or China or Russia instead.) Too much bureaucracy and second-guessing and twiddling of thumbs.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The new tower is roughly the same size and dimensions as the old North Tower. The roofline is exactly the same and the footprint is exactly the same. The main differences asthetically are the antenna is now an architectural spire, the building is glass-clad, and the corners have a facet that tapers upward. Structurally, the base is made from reinforced concrete, the stairwells and elevator shafts are surrounded by a couple of feet of concrete instead of drywall, and the structure is a bit more redundant with a reinforced concrete core. The fireproofing is still spray-on, so still not up to 1930s standards there :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
GP is referring to people that may not have been American citizens but were there working or on vacation who unfortunately died that day.
Clearly Slashdot is news for the kind of nerd who nerds out about what kind of news is for nerds.
I come to Slashdot because every once in a while I find one insightful, useful comment that changes my whole understanding of a technical issue. Because the timing and location of those comments are unpredictable and they occur seemingly at random the great "comment hunt" triggers all of the same mental processes as a gambling addiction. So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.
The people in the towers weren't guilty of anything either.
Dust on an old man's sleeve
Is all the dust burnt roses leave
Dust in the air suspended
Marks the place where a story ended
T S Eliot, Four Quartets.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246),
so that would be a good thing for you?
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
It seemed to be barely moving for months but this spring they must have really picked it up a notch because suddenly it's been growing fast! To me the old WTC is so reminiscent of the dotcom days. I had just moved to NYC and was for a small tech firm. Always loved perusing the O'reilly books at the WTC Borders on some down time. Nice to see them finally bringing it back, definitely gives me some optimism even if the USA and the world will never be the same again. But better or worse I'm packing up and heading to the west coast next year anyways. If you're not working in finance or maybe some wing of the entertainment industry there's nothing for you in New York anymore. All that crap about "Silicon Alley" is just hype. The only people hiring are hedge funds who want some kind of shady derivative algorithms coded up...but anyways, at least the WTC is back in one form or another.
Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that.
The perpetrators were mainly Saudi, they trained in Afghanistan and the US public links all this with the war in Iraq - where a shitload of innocent people died, probably all of whom had nothing to do with 9/11. And even in Afghanistan a bucketload of innocent people died.
Iraq body count
Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan
But I can't seem to find a link for a war in Saudi Arabia, or the number of civilian deaths there.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
We should have built 2 ICBM silos there, put in the latest and greatest ICBMs with the highest yield warheads we have, and put up a bronze plaque stating, "The next time someone attacks us, we launch these missiles at everything they hold dear."
Yes, because that sort of thing tends to work so well against those who want to be martyrs in the first place...
Because the timing and location of those comments are unpredictable and they occur seemingly at random the great "comment hunt" triggers all of the same mental processes as a gambling addiction. So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.
So, Slashdot is essentially an Internet slot machine, and they payout is in obscure knowledge. Also, I'm used to the green color, that doesn't hurt.
Dammit... is that why I keep coming back? Darn these addictions.
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
If it's not habitable, it's not a building, per se, ie, it's not "the tallest building in NYC".
Would you prefer "Tallest ongoing erection in NYC?"
NYC is a big place, I'm sure there are bigger pricks =)
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
Many of those 10,000 supported the demise of the 3k, so I'm just fine with that.
That's a morally problematic stance to take. First of all, what's "many of those 10.000"? 1.000? 5.000? Let's say 5.000 for the sake of avoiding harder math. Ok, so the next step would be to take you and 16.665 like-minded individuals (plus a midget), put them in a group with 16.666 random people (plus a midget) and kill the whole group.
And I think the bluntness of the AC didn't really convey what I find to be a valid point: you should remember the ramifications. The most important lesson to learn, here, is that 9/11 didn't end with the building coming down. It resulted in much more people (including a lot of non-combatants) getting killed in two wars, an enourmous economic crisis, creation of the Patriot Act and the TSA etc. The reaction to the event was arguably worse than the attack itself, and if people forget about that and only think "honor our 3.000 and fuck the terrists", they are only fostering the kind of exploitable us v. them mentality that led to this political and economic nightmare to begin with.
It's 100.000, not 10.000, and it's still a very conservative estimate of the casualties of the American wars in the last decade.
The notion that "many of those 100.000" supported the events of 9/11 is plain ridiculous, particularly if you consider the average demographics of the war casualties (unharmed civilians from underdeveloped countries). Also, I would like to remind you that collective punishment is banned by the Geneve Treaty.
Still, nowadays world is much less safe and stable than 10 years ago, and Americans got robbed of a much deserved peace dividend that would have turned the US into a prosperous peaceful country.
But you got just another big skyscraper so Go America, I guess.
I don't think I ever met anyone who believed that Iraq was in retaliation for 9/11.
Let me introduce you to Mr Anonymous Coward and Mr SuperKendall who posted above - both arguing over the 100,000's of civilian deaths that were due to 9/11 retaliation. That has only occurred in Iraq and nowhere near that number has occurred in Afghanistan.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Depends on how you measure buildings: do you count architectural spires or antenna, or just measure to the top of occupied floors? As noted in TFA, there's a lot of arguments about these factors when comparing building heights. Personally, as an engineer, I'm more interested in the height as measured by occupied floors, because the rest is just fluff. Anyone can add a mast (either non-functional, as in the case of spires, or functional, in the case of antennas) to the top of some building. In fact, some structures don't even qualify as buildings, as they're just giant antenna (such as the one in North Dakota that's the tallest structure in North America), but to me a giant antenna is nowhere near as significant an engineering accomplishment as a giant building, so the antennas slapped on top should be ignored when comparing heights.
Not to mention that housing two ICBMs in buildings which... terrorists would fly planes into would really make those fireworks even more spectacular next time around.
Go back to remedial thinking 101, you failed.
I go by highest usable restroom. Any altitude above which I cannot relieve myself in comfort is irrelevant.
You kill 3,000 of ours, we'll kill 100,000 of yours.
When did we kill 100,000 Saudis?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Hey, that's the combination on my luggage!
Thanks, we've been trying to open that thing ever since the airline "lost" it.
Yours,
The TSA
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Hi there. You're an idiot.
well, for starters, how about actually waging war on those who attacked us? bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the taliban that hosted them left Afghanistan. ol Bin L was chilling and watching porn and porking his young wives for years after, laughing at us turning places where Al Q never was into Al Q recruiting grounds (e.g. Iraq and some others). years later, we label as that same "taliban" other groups disgruntled with foreign invaders, and in fact are negotiating with "taliban" because of course we will never "win" in Afghanistan. What a load of bullshit. We aren't the best hope for the world, we're global mass murdering psychopaths.
I don't know about you, but I find the ass-groping, crevice-penetrating symbol of the TSA much more unpleasant. I can ignore a phallus in the sky, but a finger in my ass is a completely different matter.
Precisely why I chuckle darkly every time I hear the phrase, "We must do X or the 'terrorists' will win!"
Obviously, they already have.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Part of the rationale for going into Iraq was the idea of "preemption" -- that the US could no longer afford to wait to find out if Iraq had WMDs, because they or terrorists who obtained them might use those weapons on the US. That entire doctrine was founded on the experience from 9/11. Furthermore, polls at the time indicated a HUGE amount of confusion about whether Iraq may have been involved in 9/11, a confusion that the political leadership at the time found very convenient, and only admitted was wrong when pressed by reporters and when it became evident years later that making any such connection was becoming ridiculous. This was all long after the invasion was implemented, of course.
This was dialog among more than just "idiots", unless you're putting the then-president and especially VP in that category.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project
"IBC is purely a civilian count. IBC defines civilian to exclude Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, suicide bombers or any others directly engaged in war-related violence. A "min" and "max" figure are used where reports differ on the numbers killed, or where the civilian status of the dead is uncertain."
104.594 to 114.260 civilian deads in Iraq only.
This is a perfect example of the root cause of everything that is wrong with the USA: supremely arrogant, utterly self-deluded, smugly imbecillic and profoundly ignorant feeling of the Universe revolving around your ass.
From what I've seen traveling around the world (something that I am sure you did not deem necessary to form your opinion) is that if anything, your numbers are actually reversed: for every naive goofus who sees USA as a potential saviour, 5 see it for what it is: a self-important empire whose distinguishing feature is hypocritical pontification about "freedom" and "democracy" while depriving anyone who has something it wants of freedom, property and frequently life all the while propping up convenient dictators and absolute monarchs (see also: Saudi Arabia) all over the world.
And your general attitude just illustrates the point gloriously.
Comedy gold. What was the last time anyone other than thieves and would-be robber barons hoping to profit from misery of their fellows actually asked you to show up and blow their country to smithereens in the name of "saving" it?
Or were you trying to be sarcastic by pointing out how USA rigged the world financial markets for its own benefit? Or more precisely for the benefit of its top 1%, who - amusingly enough - are these days busy abandoning what they sense is soon to be a rotting corpse of a has-been empire for some greener pastures...
They had already banished Osama long before 9/11. The government there, for all its own Muslim fundamentalism, is actually having quite the time keeping down the militant ones, and has executed many of them.
You kill 3,000 of ours, we'll kill 100,000 of yours. Do that often enough, maybe people will learn not to fuck with us.
It's when both sides start using this logic that things get really fun.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In reality, the goal of Bin Laden was to disrupt our financial system, which he did fairly well, and destroy our way of life. But nevermind that for a moment, let's get to what's wrong with your statement.
So,you believe the goal of "the terrorists", AKA Al Queda or Quesadilla or whatever, is to invade our country and force all 350+ million of us to follow their particular religion... hmm, sounds a lot like fundamental Christianity... funny, that.
I digress;
Anyway, in order to fulfill this goal, they hijack some planes and crash them into a couple really, really tall banks 11 years ago... then what? What devestating attack have we suffered since? Where are the imams on every corner, preaching fundamental Islam and demanding we convert? Where are the attempts to "replace the Constitution with Sharia Law?" Well, attempts from Muslims, anyway... the government is working pretty damn hard on enacting it, with the addition that everyone who isn't insanely wealthy gets treated like shit, instead of just women.
That's why I don't buy the "long game" theory - Our nation has the resources for a long drawn out conflict, whereas a ragtag bunch of goat herders with RPGs and AK-47's don't really possess the resources for a war of attrition with us.
That is what they are fighting for, not to inconvenience your air travel by forcing people to wait a bit longer in line.
You think the total loss of our Constitutional right to not be ass-raped by government agents when trying to travel from point A to B is merely "inconvenient?" That's what I love to hate about TV news watchers like you - you piss and moan about how the evil, scary, faceless Muslim boogeymen are going to come to our country (someday) and throw out the Constitution, meanwhile your own fucking government is systematically dismantling it, peeling your rights one by one; and you call it an "inconvenience." You sit in your cozy chair, foaming at the mouth with rage as you scream obcenities at images of the enemies of Oceania on your telescreen, because it's the only thing left you know you're allowed to do; the 2-minute hate is the highlight of your day... War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength...
Sorry, started channeling Orwell there for some reason...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And, of course, with both the Iraq and Afghanistan war, simply threatening war would have been enough.
Saddam, when he realized that the US wasn't interested in the fact he didn't have WMDs, had started negotiating some sort of surrender, trying to get immunity and sanctuary in some other Arab country for himself and his family, and in return handing Iraq over to whoever the hell the Americans wants.
The only reason he fought, in fact, was that he was (quite rightly) convinced that he'd be executed. So the real question is: Was it worth hundreds of thousands of lives to bring one person to trial?
We, of course, completely ignored any such negotiations, which were stopped by the actual invasion.
And the Taliban were, and are, cowards. And, hell, they didn't like bin Laden either, the only reason they let him live there was poor control of their country, and some bribes.
If we had simply said "Look, off the record, we're coming in to get bin Laden, regardless...we can either do this 'with your permission' leaving your authority intact, or we can just walk right in, leaving you in the uncomfortable position of having another country violate your sovereignty with a military force and you essentially forced to respond..."
They would have, of course, said 'Uh, sure, we don't like bin Laden either! Now, uh, we will join the Americans in removing this person who have seized control of part of our country! Here's a dozen guys with guns to help, because this is a 'joint' operation, after all. Also can we maybe have less trade sanctions...no? Just checking.'
We, of course, didn't bother with trying to do that, either. we said 'Turn him over', they said 'No', and we...gave up trying to negotiate and invaded. (And then we didn't even bother to get bin Laden, either.)
I'm not saying that America should go around threatening other countries. But frankly, we're a 800-pound gorilla, and if we're going to actually invade, the least we can do is threaten these incredibly weak countries a little bit more until they surrender, which at least doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of people dead.
But, of course, the neo-cons don't want to just push the US's weight around, which the US already does anyway. No, they think things are better with 'war', and apparently we've all forgotten that 'war' means 'Trying to kill people while they try to kill you'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You gotta be kidding. This is why I asked for anyone who is not a self-serving jackal asking you for "help". And so you list prime examples of the very thing I pointed out!
Libya: a bunch of radical islamists trying to overthrow a secular thug in order to establish Sharia law and persecute everyone who is not them. You and NATO helped in hopes of gaining preferential access to Libyan oil fields. Next.
Serbia: a bunch of power-hungry "separatists" who would exploit any possible division to split their country into a buch of city-states if they could get away with it as long as it put them in charge. Not to mention that some of them used a clever strategy of breeding like rabbits to gain control of territory of their neighbours, which you and NATO whole-heartedly endorsed. So you stepped in and gave them "freedom" to be dependent on you and your allies! And oppress the Serbs. Then there is a whole litany of fabricated "war crimes" that you try to pin on the Serbs to bring them to heel (never you mind that NATO killed far more civilians in far more criminal fashion, like bombing passenger trains, etc). An exercise in disgusting, self-serving "righteousness" for profit. Next.
Kuwait: an absolute monarchy invaded by a next door thug over them syphoning his oil using lateral oil wells running under Iraq's border built by US corporations (you knew the reason for the invasion, didn't you?) and so you went and ... restored absolute, oppressive monarchy back into its "rightful" place, the great purveyors of "freedom" and "democracy" that you are! Oh and the lies and propaganda that went along with it! The tear inducing (and totally fake) "eye witness" testimony by an incognito daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador before the Senate about babies murdered in their incubators... just priceless. Next.
Korea: you propped up a dictator so bloody and corrupt that half of his country preferred Soviet-style thuggery to his exploits! Or did you think that all these North Koreans who fought against you did it just for kicks? It was not until the 1990s when the last South Korean dictator was ousted, all the previous ones having been untouchable due to your whole-hearted support, the great lovers of "freedom" and "democracy" that you are. Next.
WW2: you ignored all the pleas for help while trying to profit from the war by strategically supplying both sides until you were outright attacked by the Axis, Japan having bombed Pearl Harbour and 4 days later Nazi Germany having declared war on you. You did not join out of any good will. Next.
WW1: a bunch of blood-thirsty empires fighting over which royal dick is going to be sucked by whom. There were no "good guys" in this war and so you cannot count it as "helping" anyone (other then yourself). Next.
Indeed, the Spanish American war, the subjugation of Philippines, etc etc. A long list of selfish, self-centered exploits of a greedy empire.
Actually the distinction is quite different. All of the military actions of the US are (with the possible exception of WW2) self-centered profit and expansion of power seeking excercises but because of the chosen "national narrative" and "national mythos" of the USA, i.e. "brave defenders of freedom and democracy" that your power elites use to hold the thing together, they are forced to pretend that the actions are to give liberties of the oppressed etc and so on to keep the populace appropriately opiated. Sometimes the mirage thus formed is more successful then other times. This is what is confusing you.